In the context of quantum mechanics, there are many misconceptions on what is meant by "observer" "nothing" "random" "agnostic" etc.....have you ever made an article on that subject ?

I've treated all but agnostic in one post or another. In the context of QM, 'observer' and 'nothing' are dealt with in THIS PIECE.

I've treated 'random' in quite a few posts in different contexts. You can find a search bar on the right-hand side of the screen, into which you can insert any term you like, and it will display every post in which that term appears on one page. In rigorous terms, 'random' means simply 'statistically independent', which means merely that any one outcome is precisely as likely as any one of the available possible outcomes.

Agnosticism, as defined by Huxley, who coined the term, refers to the idea that knowledge (pertaining to a given claim) is not possible.

hackenslash wrote:Agnosticism, as defined by Huxley, who coined the term, refers to the idea that knowledge (pertaining to a given claim) is not possible.

Hope that helps.

well obviously I was talking about agnostic as it relates to QM, some interpretations are deterministic others are non deterministic and others are agnostic I am assuming that these agnostic interpretations are simply interpretations that don't "care" if the universe si deterministic or non deterministic. .............but understanding QM at that level is far beyond my abilities.

hackenslash wrote:, 'random' means simply 'statistically independent', which means merely that any one outcome is precisely as likely as any one of the available possible outcomes.

.

are dice random?.............I am pretty sue that the answer is no, because the result of a dice is determined by variables like wind, friction, gravity, initial force, initial. etc.........we humans cant predict the result of a dice because it depends on so many variables, but each variable is deterministic and in principle can be predicted.

As far as I know, when scientist claim that particles behave randomly they mean something else.......

when you throw a dice twice and both scenarios are identical, same wind, same force, same friction, same initial state, same height etc..... you would get the same result............if dice where truly random you would get completely different results even is the variables are the same...........am I understanding random correctly?

hackenslash wrote:Agnosticism, as defined by Huxley, who coined the term, refers to the idea that knowledge (pertaining to a given claim) is not possible.

Hope that helps.

well obviously I was talking about agnostic as it relates to QM, some interpretations are deterministic others are non deterministic and others are agnostic I am assuming that these agnostic interpretations are simply interpretations that don't "care" if the universe si deterministic or non deterministic. .............but understanding QM at that level is far beyond my abilities.

Well, the important thing to note about interpretations of quantum mechanics is that they aren't part of the science. They're ontologies, and ontologies have no place in science. They are a means of guiding questions and, until some means can be found to falsify some/one/all of them, they're not in any way remotely scientific, except as part of the abductive process. At this point, they're all empirically equivalent.

leroy wrote:are dice random?.............I am pretty sue that the answer is no, because the result of a dice is determined by variables like wind, friction, gravity, initial force, initial. etc.........we humans cant predict the result of a dice because it depends on so many variables, but each variable is deterministic and in principle can be predicted.

This seems to be treating the term 'random' to mean 'uncaused' and, as I've said, that's not what the term means in the sciences, it means 'statistically independent'. The terms 'random' and 'deterministic' don't exist on the same spectrum. There are deterministic events that are entirely random, and indeed this is what chaos theory is based on.

As far as I know, when scientist claim that particles behave randomly they mean something else.......

They mean what I've said above, namely that any one outcome is exactly as probable as any other outcome.

when you throw a dice twice and both scenarios are identical, same wind, same force, same friction, same initial state, same height etc..... you would get the same result............if dice where truly random you would get completely different results even is the variables are the same...........am I understanding random correctly?

Well, non-linear dynamics tells us that this isn't actually true, especially when dealing with systems containing a large number of actors. Sensitivity to initial conditions in deterministic systems is precisely what chaos is.

Even where all the variables are identical, the outcome of the roll of a fair die is entirely random, because any of the available outcomes is exactly as probable as any other of the available outcomes. This is what random means. It has nothing to do with cause.

hackenslash wrote:Well, the important thing to note about interpretations of quantum mechanics is that they aren't part of the science. They're ontologies, and ontologies have no place in science. They are a means of guiding questions and, until some means can be found to falsify some/one/all of them, they're not in any way remotely scientific, except as part of the abductive process. At this point, they're all empirically equivalent.

Tis music to mine ears.

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)

Interesting change of pace, and glad to see that the link you gave me to go direct to the latest post works!

I think science and religion do answer different questions: science answers questions about the nature of reality, and religion answers wrong-headed questions.

What I think would be nice would be if religion were to evolve towards a purely internal inquiry, not a pretense about the external world. Questions about our values, our treatment of others, our way of approaching the obstacles in our lives are not scientific questions, and can't be answered with any of the equipment of science. But these questions do plague our species, and apparently have done for as long as we've been human. So it would be nice if religion got off its collective arse and finally earned its keep.

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

the real question is, up to what point one should reject his personal experiences and accept the scientific evidence instead, for example if there is evidence that you killed john, but your experience (memory) tells you that you are innocent. up to what point should you consider the scientific evidence over your own personal experiences.?

I don't claim to have an answer for this question,.....

I am not justifying the author of that quote, but...the point that I am trying to make is that it is possible and coherent to "know something"(with a high degree of certainty) even if the evidence points to an other direction. it is possible to know that you are innocent even if there is evidence against you.

leroy wrote: the real question is, up to what point one should reject his personal experiences and accept the scientific evidence instead,....

It depends on who the person is and consequently two component qualities of their personality.

1) How much do they value truth2) How big their hubris is.

For someone who values the truth to such a degree that they would put aside any comforting notion if evidence showed them otherwise, then one should be more than willing to reject personal experiences, because they represent just 1 data point out of hundreds of billions, and no intelligent person should ever assume that they're infallible.

For someone who doesn't possess such humility, then no evidence can ever take paramount over the necessary inferences of their religious tradition through the supposedly divinely dictated scripture. (Henry Morris, for example)

leroy wrote: for example if there is evidence that you killed john, but your experience (memory) tells you that you are innocent. up to what point should you consider the scientific evidence over your own personal experiences.?

At the very moment that the evidence shows I did do it.

What did you do while you were asleep last night LEROY?

Do you remember?

What if I showed you a video recording of you going out in your pajamas and urinating on your next door neighbours' car? Would you deny the observable evidence?

If you were being consistent, you would. But I don't think anyone imagines that you could be consistent.

leroy wrote:I don't claim to have an answer for this question,.....

I am not justifying the author of that quote, but...the point that I am trying to make is that it is possible and coherent to "know something"(with a high degree of certainty) even if the evidence points to an other direction. it is possible to know that you are innocent even if there is evidence against you.

The Human Folly.

We know that humans mistake things they see (e.g. try optical illusions), we know that humans suffer from stress, and other mental imbalances which can produce auditory and hallucinatory effects, we know that memories warp over time, even to the point of false memories being installed and believed.

So why would any honest person credit their sensory experience as taking precedence over empirical evidence contradicting them?

I submit that this is the difference between religious fundies and everyone else. As with everything else you do, LEROY - your ego controls you like a marionette, jerking from one self-defeating declaration of certainty to the next.

Science, as I've told you before, is a process specifically designed to address uncertainty. We know we could always find some data that changes everything, which is why all scientific conclusions are provisional. Religious people like yourself assume that belief surpasses any other form of inquiry, and consequently have no interest in degrees of certainty, only in the expression of absolute conviction.

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)